TOPIC

As I have written for years, implementing a federal medical marijuana program in the U.S. would better align the country with its obligations under the three international drug treaties. In 2020, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted to remove cannabis from Schedule IV of the Single Convention. By leaving cannabis only in Schedule I, the world acknowledged its therapeutic efficacy. The three drug treaties also emphasize, repeatedly, that ensuring access and research to medicine for people around the world is a core principle.

But acknowledging medical efficacy is not all that's required. Medical marijuana markets around the world show that providing access in forms and fashions similar to the U.S. state markets is already the norm in many countries. Germany is probably the best example of a country that has implemented a robust medical marijuana program without running into any treaty problems. Because medical and scientific use of marijuana is expressly permitted under the drug treaties, there is no treaty barrier to the DEA and FDA implementing a state-legal medical marijuana pilot program.

Adult use is a bit more complicated but is not prohibited under certain circumstances  nonetheless. As Switzerland and the Netherlands show, adult-use pilot programs are an acceptable form of legalization under the three international drug treaties. The International Narcotics Control Board may disagree, but there is little it can actually do about it. The EU, too, seems to accept that such programs align with drug treaty obligations. Implementing an adult-use pilot program would therefore place the U.S. in better alignment with its treaty obligations (setting aside the treaties' own constitutional limitations, the rest of the world already views the U.S. as out of compliance because of its state-legal programs).

By bringing state-legal programs into a framework much of the world already accepts under the drug treaties, the U.S. would show respect for its international treaty obligations — without having to eliminate the state-legal markets that already exist.